Chronicling Mitt Romey's Lies

[astralis]

chogy,

A fascinating peek into the mind of the first lady.

i don't know how much emphasis i'd put on something a political neophyte (at the time) says on campaign; otherwise, one would have to seriously question if mitt romney cares about half the US populace...

[TopHatter]

What indication has he ever given that tells you he loves this country?

-dale

I know right?

[dalem]

no, but of course he loves his country so the question is moot.

What indication has he ever given that tells you he loves this country?

-dale

[Roosveltrepub]

To me it's a valid point and question. Can one be patriotic about something one doesn't like?

-dale

no, but of course he loves his country so the question is moot.

[Stitch]

A fascinating peek into the mind of the first lady.

Thanks, but no thanks . . ..

[Chogy]

I'll question Obama's, sure. He doesn't even like this country - how can he be a patriot?

-dale

Reminds me of Michelle Obama's "pride" remark... after her husband won the election in 2008.

Michelle Obama: “For the First Time in My Adult Lifetime, I’m Really Proud of My Country”

A fascinating peek into the mind of the first lady.

[dalem]

Another general purpose slur? This seems to be your trademark.

To me it's a valid point and question. Can one be patriotic about something one doesn't like?

-dale

[dmwnc1959]

I'll question Obama's, sure. He doesn't even like this country - how can he be a patriot?

-dale

Another general purpose slur? This seems to be your trademark.

[dmwnc1959]

You know, I'm starting to get the impression that you don't think very highly of this Mitt Romney fellow, dmw.

-dale

I don't think I used the term 'slime ball' but once. ;)

[dalem]

You know, I'm starting to get the impression that you don't think very highly of this Mitt Romney fellow, dmw.

-dale

[dmwnc1959]

"You can't be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day," Huntsman told CNN. "Romney has been missing in action in terms of showing any kind of leadership."

Still holds true 43 days before the election.

[dmwnc1959]

MORE of Romney's Lies and Deceit:

Up to Volume 35 now. I imagine by time we hit the election we'll be at Volume 40.

HERE

[JAD_333]

RR:

First off, welcome back.

It appears you saved up plenty of ammo for a full-throated broadside against Romney.

I have to agree that there have been what we now call 'lies', but in another day, we would call distortions. But no point in quibbling over terminology. Inaccuracies are inaccuracies.

Speaking of inaccuracies, do you also plan to go into Obama's 'lies' or just Romney's? I ask because both sides have been bending the truth at a fair clip.

You brought up the claim that Obama has dropped the 'work rule requirement for welfare' and you are right. Romney has misstated the facts:

Romney Defends Bogus Obama Welfare Ads, Dismissing Fact-Checkers

Here is what actually happened: At the request of several states -- including two with Republican governors -- the Obama administration announced in July that it would consider waiving certain federal welfare rules if states have ideas for "demonstration projects" they promise can increase welfare employment outcomes by 20 percent (states are required to maintain certain percentages of welfare beneficiaries in work activities or else face penalties). The administration has not announced that it has issued any waivers.

But instead of saying something to the effect that the administration has potentially removed welfare work requirements, or perhaps opened the door for their eventual removal -- even those phrasings would be a big stretch -- the Romney campaign has been saying, "Obama quietly ended work requirements for welfare."

The ads echo reports by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Ron Haskins, a welfare expert and former Republican congressional staffer who helped write the 1996 welfare reform law, has said Romney's welfare attacks are bogus. "There's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform," Haskins said (though he has also suggested that the Obama administration should not have gone around Congress to give states welfare flexibility).

So, a grain of truth was made into a sand pile by Romney.

Then you took off on Medicare with a long-winded, somewhat disjointed condemnation of Romeny's plan for saving Medicare, which we all know is in deep trouble.

First you brought up the questionable claim that Obama swiped $700 billion from Medicare to help fund the HCA; it is all a matter of perception. I understand both side's reasoning and I'd give Obama the edge here. But his premise is that those dollars will not be need in the future since the HCA's other provisions will lower operating costs to Medicare providers, such as cutting losses that hospitals incur due to the billions they lose annually in providing free emergency treatment to uninsured patients. There's smoke here, but not fire.

Then you went into Medicare itself, more or less repeating the false Obama claim that Romney and Ryan want to end Medicare as we know it. Obama's continually makes this claim, although fact checkers have blown it out of the water. In fact Obama is considering shifting his campaign emphasis to Medicare, inasmuch as the news on employment is not in his favor. He may actually do Romney a favor, as he and Ryan have both said dem and GOP ideas need to be debated as one.

Meanwhile Obama has the fact checkers on his tail.

Why the Democrats' 'Mediscare' Attack Won't Work Against Paul Ryan And Mitt Romney - Forbes

As we’ve documented extensively at The Apothecary, the Wyden-Ryan Medicare plan—so named because it was coauthored by progressive Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.)—only applies to Americans younger than 55 years of age, and gives those younger individuals the option of remaining in the traditional Medicare program, or choosing a comparable private-sector insurance plan.

The policy-wonk term for this approach is “competitive bidding,” an idea that originated with Democrats. The Wyden-Ryan plan is nearly identical to one that was introduced a few weeks earlier by Mitt Romney.

The bottom line: if Romney and Ryan leave you the option to remain in the 1965-vintage, fee-for-service, traditional Medicare program, and you claim that Medicare has “ended as we know it,” what you’ve really ended is the English language as we know it.

A prior version of Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms—one that Mitt Romney did not fully endorse—would have required all future retirees younger than 55 today to join a private plan. But even describing that plan as “ending Medicare as we know it” is ridiculous. Both Obamacare and Ryan’s plan make changes to Medicare: Obamacare in the direction of government rationing, and Ryan in the direction of privatization. PolitiFact, the left-leaning fact-checking site, pronounced the “ending Medicare” claim to be the 2011 Lie of the Year.

You also mentions Medicaid block grants to states. I'll take a pass on that. It's hellishly complicated.

About Ryan's marathon time error being a pathological lie, give me a break. The marathon he was talking about was run over 20 years ago and he hasn't run one since because of a back problem. You don't think that after 20 years you might not be a little out of touch with the sport? And, anyway, why lie, with all the world listening and ready to Tweet about it?

I think those are three most aggregious claims of the Ryan/Romney campaign...well beyond Ryan l;ieing about his marathin time. really when someone lies when they don't really need to why think they will tell the truth when they have a clear benefit in lieing. I understand lieing about cheating on your wife not lieing about a road race...neither is right but one is pathological.......

Damn I made some kick ass coffee this morning...I guess when it's grey after adding milk one cup is enough Have a great day WABers

You sure as hell did. You have a good day too and don't be a stranger.

[Roosveltrepub]

Well, two that are really really flatout lies are the "he is ending work requirements for welfare" when in fact those state requested waivers are rescinded if they dont actually improve welfare to work rates

The waivers gave "those states some flexibility in how they manage their welfare rolls as long as it produced 20% increases in the number of people getting work."

In some small way, the waivers might change precisely how work is calculated but the essential goal of pushing welfare recipients to work -- something both Democrats and Republicans agreed to in the 1990s -- remains the same.

Fact check: Romney's welfare claims wrong - CNN.com What is even more outrageous is he asked for and recieved a waibver as Gov far before the great recession. I think this one goes beyond spin or political lie into the realm of extreme hypocrisy and demogoguery. it is false, something he himself asked for in far better times and designed and clearly designed to appeal on an emotional level to prejudices about welfare. If you think it isn't I question whether you really can look at anything with a token of objectivity. Obama just handing out wlefare checks is to truth what Bush wanted blacks to die in NO was. Of course kerry didnt say it just the nutter wing did. Romey on the other hand.... is wooing a certain segment of t he white working class by appealingf to emotion and prejudice with lies... really a textbook definition for demogueryhttp://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-election/why-and-how-romney-is-playing-the-race-card-20120829

Thanks to Romney, they see minorities grabbing at their way of life every day and all day in the inaccurate welfare ad. It opens with a picture of Bill Clinton (a man obsessed with Macomb County and Reagan Democrats) signing the 1996 welfare reform act, which shifted the benefits from indefinite government assistance to one pushing people into employment and self-reliance.

A leather-gloved white laborer wipes sweat from his forehead. “But on July 12,” the ad intones,” President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send your welfare check and “welfare to work” goes back to being plain old welfare.”

Translation:

Sweaty White Laborer = That’s Me!

“You Wouldn’t Have to Work” = Blacks Wouldn’t Have to Work

“They Just Send Your Welfare Check …” = They Just Give Your Pay Away to Lazy Blacks

“Plain Old Welfare” = Remember Those Welfare Queens? They’re Back.

Before explaining why these tactics work (and why Romney’s team knows, or should know, they are playing the race card), let’s quickly deal with this fact: The ad is wrong. As countless impartial fact-checkers have noted, the Obama administration memo cited by the Romney team actually gives states flexibility to find better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs.

Why ignore fact-checkers? First, internal GOP polling and focus groups offer convincing evidence that the welfare ad is hurting Obama. Second, the welfare issue, generally speaking, triggers anger in white blue-collar voters that is easily directed toward Democrats. This information comes from senior GOP strategists who have worked both for President Bush and Romney. They spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid retribution.

Furthermore, a senior GOP pollster said he has shared with the Romney camp surveys showing that white working-class voters who backed Obama in 2008 have moved to Romney in recent weeks “almost certainly because of the welfare ad. We’re talking a (percentage) point or two, but that could be significant.”

Then we have the hypocritical medicare claim that HCR cuts medicare 700 billion. A broadly true claim but so does the Ryan plan...the exact number. The difference is HCR cuts payments to providers and Ryans plan actually increases the costs to seniors and increases the payments to insurers and hospitals. I mean really we have medicare advantage the private sector providers who have needed hundreds o f millions in subsidies to compete with public sector medicare. Yet I am supposed to believe ending the subsidies and putting everyone on private plans and at the same time providing less dollars per person isn't going to result in a huge increase in the costs to medicare recipients than the current system? Not only do the elderly pay the 700 billion out of pocket but they have to pay for private plans which now have been PROVEN to be more costly than our single payer medicare plan. That one is just a lie and really only disgusting because those telling it actually are the ones with the plan to shift money from seniors to Insurance company bottomlines. it relies on ignorance and an ability to ignore the cost comparisons between private medicare plans and goverment healthcare. So, while attacking Obama for cutting Medicare spending increases by cutting provider payments Ryan/Romney have a plan to actually increase costs to recipients and add in increased costs for private insurance and cut the actual percentage of care paid for http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...8ZeuLDHkFYNKAA While the AMA may not like that the cuts will happen anyway under Obama at least they point out how much more the cost of care is under "the magic of the market plans" Add in the deceptive practices used to recruit recipients by some agents and the tailoring of the coverages to discourage those with expensive ailments from leaving traditional medicare today and the idea vouchers would mean increased costs to seniors becomes compounded by the aditional 15-20 percent increase in costs per patient over traditional medicare.


I know the idea of medicare advantage was the magic of the market would create a cheaper privatized plan but the facts are the privatised plans are less effcient and far more costly. It requires a religous faith that the market does everything better and cheaper and a denial of the actual facts to maintain a position that private insurers are more effective than medicare single payer plan. insurance company bottomlines. Unlike medicare it would no longer be black and white on what was covered So, we have a party advocating not only an increased cost to medicare recipients(which done based on income has to happen imo) but they also have to pay more for the actual care because vouchers require the use of a system proven to be more costly per service.

So, that one is just a claim the other guy is going to do what you actually are planning to do and ignore I hear gritted teeth:bang:;) arithmatic and pretend private plans arent more costly that medicare. Honestly the idea there has to be some ,increased costs to recipients is a fantasy but to use that reality to convert to a system that would just pull cut consumer spending by increasing the cost of care without changing it is not only bad for seniors it's like saying gee wouldnt it be great for the economy if we shifted more consumer spending into healthcare? It's a plan to cut a part of goverment proen to be better than the free market at providing a service to citizens based on ideological beliefs in cutting goverment rather than pragmatism or fact.


So many think oh liberals dont want to increase citizen share of medicare costs when the fact is only someone lying or under a rock believes it sint needed. it's just we don't think we should use it as an excuse to create a boon for insurance companies at the expense of citizens by dismantling a program that works.



Finally we get the magic of block grants for medicaid like medicaid in places like Texas is providing too much service and the state should be able to take it's federal money with no strings attached and cut state contributions and the level of care......like the program is some welfare benefit for poor people who should get a job or better jobs and 2/3 of it isnt going to keep seniors in nursing homes.... One thing I always will respect my Dad for is his belief while knowing he was going to end up in a nursing home if he lied long enough he chose to pay his bills ratehr than try to stick you with them. Gee, how aweful my inheritance was smaller because he didnt screw all of you. What's aweful is how often families screw all of us to avoid paying that bill. We all know families whose sole reason for asset transfers was to stick the goverment with that bill. yet the general public perception of medicaid is someone poor getting something for nothing not all those folks transferring property years earlier with clear intent being to scew you. http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wo...lock-granting/ https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=o...w=1123&bih=692 1.5 million hits on how to avoid spending your money and instead spend ours. I think those are three most aggregious claims of the Ryan/Romney campaign...well beyond Ryan l;ieing about his marathin time. really when someone lies when they don't really need to why think they will tell the truth when they have a clear benefit in lieing. I understand lieing about cheating on your wife not lieing about a road race...neither is right but one is pathological................. Damn I made some kick ass coffee this morning...I guess when it's grey after adding milk one cup is enough :) Have a great day WABers

[Roosveltrepub]

Is there some reason to question either Romney or Obama's patriotism, or is this just a general purpose slur?

I really wonder where the head of a Presidential nominee is when he gives his acceptance speech and makes his case to be President and he doesn't mention the war we are actually fighting and approves of a platform that talks about a fictious war on religon. I don't thinmk he is unpatriotic just...I don't know, plastic? I think most of the republicans in congress are extremely unpatriotic. They take two oaths one to uphold the constitution and one to Grover Norquist....... to not raise taxes ever no matter what. Seems a contradiction since taxes and spending are their purview and they make an oath that removes one from the table in any circumstance.